Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
zafonic

Help To Buy Policy In A Nutshell!

Recommended Posts

The political landscape in the UK is pretty simple (at least for the general election not for the European and Council elections). There are a staunch set of Labour supporters and a staunch set of Tory voters, most of whom wouldn’t switch their vote even if the leader of their chosen party asked them to sacrifice their right arm. In the middle there are around 2 million to 3 million “floating voters”, who will change their vote, depending on their mood (which is often linked to their perceived financial wellbeing). These swinging voters are extremely important as it is they who will determine the result of the general election.

Sad but true, which is why UKIP, even if they are eons away from what they need to be, are a good thing in UK politics. Swing voters dont hold the key, to breaking this stranglehold, its the right of the tory party and the left of the labour party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that HPI wins elections. If you compare UK house price inflation stats over the past 50 years with general election results in that time, governments who stoke HPI leading up to an election are slightly more likely to lose than to win. Unfortunately George Osborne doesn't appear to realise that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that HPI wins elections. If you compare UK house price inflation stats over the past 50 years with general election results in that time, governments who stoke HPI leading up to an election are slightly more likely to lose than to win. Unfortunately George Osborne doesn't appear to realise that.

Why would he realise that he's a trust fund boy who has never had a proper job, its not his fault he's a useless cnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political landscape in the UK is pretty simple (at least for the general election not for the European and Council elections). There are a staunch set of Labour supporters and a staunch set of Tory voters, most of whom wouldn’t switch their vote even if the leader of their chosen party asked them to sacrifice their right arm. In the middle there are around 2 million to 3 million “floating voters”, who will change their vote, depending on their mood (which is often linked to their perceived financial wellbeing). These swinging voters are extremely important as it is they who will determine the result of the general election.

Sad but true, which is why UKIP, even if they are eons away from what they need to be, are a good thing in UK politics. Swing voters dont hold the key, to breaking this stranglehold, its the right of the tory party and the left of the labour party.

I'm a leftish person who's going to be voting green....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a leftish person who's going to be voting green....

+1, all the rest are similar tory flavours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political landscape in the UK is pretty simple (at least for the general election not for the European and Council elections).

It wasn't that simple during the last general election. The LibDems made inroads then but decided to renege on their promises. It's not as cut and dried now as the writer is trying to make out. Many people are starting to recognise the LibLabCon con now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House price inflation – votes!

Politicians recognise the correlation between house prices and the likelihood of election success and will therefore do everything in their power to create house price inflation and increase the illusion of perceived wealth amongst the floating voters.

It’s the same old script that has been happening for years:

  • Inflate the bubble – party re-elected
  • Inflate the bubble – part re-elected
  • Inflate the bubble – part re-elected

CRASH! – time for a new government

That's not always true.

The Conservatives tried it for the 1974 general election with the Barber Boom/Dash for Growth and house price lunacy (not quite on the same scale of lunacy as currently) - and they lost.

The Conservatives were in power during the the end of 1980s/ early 90s CRASH! and they were re-elected in 1992.

That's the two main house price booms before the current one.

House prices were starting to pick up before the 1997 general election but the Conservatives were wiped out.

It's not all about house prices - there are other factors to take into account.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not always true.

The Conservatives tried it for the 1974 general election with the Barber Boom/Dash for Growth house and house price lunacy (not quite on the same scale of lunacy as currently) - and they lost.

The Conservatives were in power during the the end of 1980s/ early 90s CRASH! and they were re-elected in 1992.

That's the two main house price booms before the current one.

House prices were starting to pick up before the 1997 general election but the Conservatives were wiped out.

It's not all about house prices - there are other factors to take into account.

Agreed, as the late 80s / early 90s crash, I know people who refer to those times so positively, giving them opportunity to finally upsize.. in London.

Twisted HTB1 does impact on voting though. The more adult children who buy under it (yet only 20,000 buyers to date under HTB1?) the more their parents will fear house price correction, and thus vote for HPI policies.

Although I suppose same is true for all the previous BoMaD helpers too. And SO / FirstBuy types before that. The younger buyers and their protective parents wanting more and more HPI, not crash or NE for their adult buyer kids who had to buy at loony prices and expect nothing but excuses and policy intervention and natural 20 year HPI from here until prices are £800,000.

Oh well, best to have big HPC, wipe out the excessive debtors and make the parent regret treating £50K like it was loose change.... and get more votes from non malinvestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't that simple during the last general election. The LibDems made inroads then but decided to renege on their promises. It's not as cut and dried now as the writer is trying to make out. Many people are starting to recognise the LibLabCon con now.

LibLabCon = The Cartel

That's not always true.

The Conservatives tried it for the 1974 general election with the Barber Boom/Dash for Growth house and house price lunacy (not quite on the same scale of lunacy as currently) - and they lost.

The Conservatives were in power during the the end of 1980s/ early 90s CRASH! and they were re-elected in 1992.

That's the two main house price booms before the current one.

House prices were starting to pick up before the 1997 general election but the Conservatives were wiped out.

It's not all about house prices - there are other factors to take into account.

It surely depends on how much of an impact hpi is having on the broader economy at the time. The Barber boom took place against the backdrop of a three-day week and electricity blackouts, whereas the UK economy had begun to improve by April 1992. 1997 is more difficult. A general fatigue with the Conservatives who'd then been in office continuously since 1979 rather than any lingering memory of Black Wednesday is my guess.

Brown even managed to fashion a mini-bubble in the run up to 2010 but talk of green shoots was the only thing he had to back it up.

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not always true.

The Conservatives tried it for the 1974 general election with the Barber Boom/Dash for Growth house and house price lunacy (not quite on the same scale of lunacy as currently) - and they lost.

The Conservatives were in power during the the end of 1980s/ early 90s CRASH! and they were re-elected in 1992.

That's the two main house price booms before the current one.

House prices were starting to pick up before the 1997 general election but the Conservatives were wiped out.

It's not all about house prices - there are other factors to take into account.

That's right! Don't also forget the feeble Maudling boom of 1963 and the tories lost to Labour in 1964. The fact is many people know that rising home prices, that go far beyond wage increases lead to trouble. The current help to buy policy is sheer lunacy. Wages have barely picked up and some are still falling, yet houses are going up now, in some areas quite sharply.

The British voter is less wedded to tory and Labour than for many generations. There is a shift taking place with UKIP causing it. True, you won't be seeing a UKIP Govt ANY TIME SOON, BUT YOU WILL SEE UKIP MP's. The intervening issue is the EU and immigration policy. The polls show that Cameron/Osborne are not seeing a tory resurgence. People do not want Cameron or Osborne to lead the country. They are not that sure of Ed Milliband, although they appreciate him speaking out against the cot of living. He is missing the target. Homes and Rents costs far too much! I heard the BBC radio 4 announce that if wages had kept up with home prices since 1984, then average wages would be £87,000 pa. WE KNOW THAT! I have time and again said prices are up to 50% too high. People are able to borrow rediculous multiples of their income and help to buy is on the top! That makes the prices sky high, when if they were allowed to borrrow these stupid sums, the prices would generally fall to match - some prime London and cash/investment property excepted. Compare the price of a French home to LONDON/SOUTH EAST HOME

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-property/property-34692163.html?premiumA=true THAT'S FOUR HOUSES ON 10 ACRES

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42216178.html THATS ONE 3 BED END OF TERRACE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't that simple during the last general election. The LibDems made inroads then but decided to renege on their promises. It's not as cut and dried now as the writer is trying to make out. Many people are starting to recognise the LibLabCon con now.

I don't think it's so much that 'they decided' as that they were a minority in a coalition and were not able to do exactly what they would have wanted.

God knows I'm no apologist for the LibDems - I can't stand Clegg - but they might at least have learned now that if you blithely make a lot of promises, supposedly secure in the knowledge that you will never be called upon to deliver, those promises may come back to bite you in the bum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so much that 'they decided' as that they were a minority in a coalition and were not able to do exactly what they would have wanted.

Lib Dem candidates said they would vote against raising tuition fees. That was the literal wording of the pledge. They were perfectly able to make good on this promise (and a minority of Lib Dem MPs did). The choice of how to vote ultimately comes down to each individual MP, and all they had to do was walk through one door instead of another. The fact that they were more scared of the whips than the electorate will be seen as a pretty feeble excuse come election time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lib Dem candidates said they would vote against raising tuition fees. That was the literal wording of the pledge. They were perfectly able to make good on this promise (and a minority of Lib Dem MPs did). The choice of how to vote ultimately comes down to each individual MP, and all they had to do was walk through one door instead of another. The fact that they were more scared of the whips than the electorate will be seen as a pretty feeble excuse come election time.

they work with the whips for 5 years...they see their public rarely...unless you are Bob Russell..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so much that 'they decided' as that they were a minority in a coalition and were not able to do exactly what they would have wanted.

God knows I'm no apologist for the LibDems - I can't stand Clegg - but they might at least have learned now that if you blithely make a lot of promises, supposedly secure in the knowledge that you will never be called upon to deliver, those promises may come back to bite you in the bum.

They made a decision to renege on tuition fees one of their core and most heavily publicised promises in exchange for power, shared power with them as the smaller partner.

They had various reasons for making that decision of course.

One of those reasons was that they'd already decided even before the election that the tuition fee proposal wasn't affordable but they kept quiet about it and still campaigned using it as a vote winner. They also campaigned on LibDem integrity littering London's Embankment in their party political broadcasts in the process.

Then they've effectively supported all the Conservative's broken promises always to the detriment of the majority of the electorate.

Their stance on Help to Buy isn't very edifying either with Cable (Business Secretary) often criticising it but they're still going along effectively supporting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they work with the whips for 5 years...they see their public rarely...unless you are Bob Russell..

Fine, well I hope Lib Dem MPs have enjoyed having a good working relationship with the whips, because in a year's time they are going to lose their jobs for choosing that over their promise to the electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, well I hope Lib Dem MPs have enjoyed having a good working relationship with the whips, because in a year's time they are going to lose their jobs for choosing that over their promise to the electorate.

Yes. I had a LibDem campaigner doorstep me last week (campaigning in the Euro elections). I basically made your point that they had reneged on their promise to oppose tuition fees and had betrayed their voters so didn't deserve my vote. She gave me a pre-rehersed speech about stopping the worst the excesses of Tory rightwingery. I replied that for democracy's sake the voters had a 'duty' to punish them to send a message to all parties that making empty promises will lose elections.

She didn't have much to say about that. Although I did feel slightly sorry for her as she was only about 23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.